Kalbear

Blade Runner 2049 - more human than human [Spoilers!]

181 posts in this topic

Am I remembering this wrong?

After Joe(is that really K's name?) is recused (why didn't they kill him?) he is taken to Android-Underground-Resistance headquarters.

That is Mariette (Mackenzie Davis) ? Talking to him? Is it? So was she working for both the LAPD and the underground?

Another character not given a background.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, boojam said:

Did I see this in the initial screen info? There were other Replicants , like Rachel, who had no prescribed life span? I thought I read that?

Sapper was one of these? Sapper had been around for ~30+ years doing no harm at all, so why was he hunted?

Yeah. Rachel was an engineered epirement by Tyrell; she was purposefully given no prescribed life span and depending on where you stand on the Deckard issue - Wallace's conversation can imply that Deckard was also put on the case for that singular purpose.

Sapper was hunted because he was an older serial number showing independence, it's that simple. Roy Batty and co. in the original were of no threat, either. They just wanted to live.

Joe isn't really K's name - if he has one he doesn't know it. It's what Joi calls him when he assumes he's the miracle child.

She wasn't working for the LAPD, IIRC. She's part of the resistance and approaches K because he killed Sapper.

Again, I think a few scenes were cut at the theater I saw it in so I might be off here or there but I think this is the gist of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Фейсал said:

Yeah. Rachel was an engineered epirement by Tyrell; she was purposefully given no prescribed life span and depending on where you stand on the Deckard issue - Wallace's conversation can imply that Deckard was also put on the case for that singular purpose.

Sapper was hunted because he was an older serial number showing independence, it's that simple. Roy Batty and co. in the original were of no threat, either. They just wanted to live.

Joe isn't really K's name - if he has one he doesn't know it. It's what Joi calls him when he assumes he's the miracle child.

She wasn't working for the LAPD, IIRC. She's part of the resistance and approaches K because he killed Sapper.

Again, I think a few scenes were cut at the theater I saw it in so I might be off here or there but I think this is the gist of it.

Yeah I always thought , in the first, film there was just a blind rule against non military Replicants , like Zhora and Pris, while Roy and Leon where dangerous. Yeah I know Replicants were considered 'bugs' , not human. Still seems they would of let the non trouble makers just die on their own.  Always wondered about Zhora , man, Joanna gets so little screen time even tho she is set up as an important character, no much story for her.

Yeah strange that the there is the same old 'rules' for a Replicant like Sapper who causes no trouble, it's a bit irrational, which is , I guess, the point.

I wonder if Joshi was a Replicant-underground sympathizer?

Well , so is the tracker Mariette puts on K also known by the LAPD? Why does Luv come there ? She seems find out where K is from info there.

So was K a product of the Wallace corporation? Could the corporation track their Replicants?

 

Edited by boojam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, boojam said:

Did I see this in the initial screen info? There were other Replicants , like Rachel, who had no prescribed life span? I thought I read that?

Sapper was one of these? Sapper had been around for ~30+ years doing no harm at all, so why was he hunted?

There is; however, I'm nearly positive that the opening screen text called them Nexus-8s; whereas Roy and co. were Nexus-6s. My guess is that Rachel was the first Nexus-8 and that there were a few more in the production pipeline already (like Sapper) when Tyrell Corp. got shuttered.

 

1 hour ago, Фейсал said:

Joe isn't really K's name - if he has one he doesn't know it. It's what Joi calls him when he assumes he's the miracle child..

I'm pretty sure it's also what the giant, naked hologram Joi calls him ("You look like a real Joe" or something like that). Further suggesting that maybe everything Joi did was just programming; or maybe that she was trying to be 'real' but was being held back by her programming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Fez said:

 I'm pretty sure it's also what the giant, naked hologram Joi calls him ("You look like a real Joe" or something like that). Further suggesting that maybe everything Joi did was just programming; or maybe that she was trying to be 'real' but was being held back by her programming.

The giant hologram Joi , that was Ana de Armas? O my!

Edited by boojam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, boojam said:

Well , so is the tracker Mariette puts on K also known by the LAPD? Why does Luv come there ? She seems find out where K is from info there.

So was K a product of the Wallace corporation? Could the corporation track their Replicants?

 

I think at one point K had three different trackers on him.

The LAPD probably had standard policy to track their vehicles; Mariette slipped a tracker into K's coat for the Replicant underground, and Joi's portable device ( made by Wallace Corp) had an antenna to communicate with his home network which I think Luv tapped into to track K.   So when Joi had K break the antenna, Luv had to get K's location from the LAPD to find him in Vegas.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was one heck of a flick. Watched it last week and had to ponder it a bit but this is how science fiction should be done. 

The cinematography was amazing, the acting was great and the story was really good. It posed a few questions in tune with the original and it felt very much like a sequel worth making.

K and Joi's relationship was a great centre of this movie, and by having that at the centre, you get a difference from the first movie too, even though we'll probably debate what Deckard really is, in my view he's human enough in Blade Runner to relate to him in that way. 

Harrison Ford actually got something to do here, and you could really feel the emotion behind Old Man Deckard. Compared to another sequel he did two years ago where he just seemed to want to get it over with, here it felt like he gave it everything, and the movie took a step up the moment he was introduced. 

It felt like there were a lot of biblical allegories with Wallace character. How he gave life and can take it away when he wants, how he seems to style himself after Messiah etc. How he referred to his creations as angels. If anyone is more familiar with christian mythology I'd love to hear some more about his two scenes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

There is; however, I'm nearly positive that the opening screen text called them Nexus-8s; whereas Roy and co. were Nexus-6s. My guess is that Rachel was the first Nexus-8 and that there were a few more in the production pipeline already (like Sapper) when Tyrell Corp. got shuttered.

 

Sapper's inception date was 2020, so the Nexus-8s were certainly in the planning. I think I've seen some fanwank that Rachael was the first Nexus-7 or 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw it. I thought it was excellent.

I've got to say I agree with everyone who liked K and Joi's relationship. The bit when the giant billboard hologram Joi called him Joe was brutal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JonArryn said:

Harrison Ford actually got something to do here, and you could really feel the emotion behind Old Man Deckard. Compared to another sequel he did two years ago where he just seemed to want to get it over with, here it felt like he gave it everything, and the movie took a step up the moment he was introduced. 

I partially disagree with this statement. He did want to get it over with it, as he says so himself, he wanted to step out of the way. But he gave a good performance in that one, too, as good as this one.

3 hours ago, JonArryn said:

It felt like there were a lot of biblical allegories with Wallace character. How he gave life and can take it away when he wants, how he seems to style himself after Messiah etc. How he referred to his creations as angels. If anyone is more familiar with christian mythology I'd love to hear some more about his two scenes. 

It felt like that to me, too. I would say closer to the God of the Old Testament than anything in the New Testament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno if it was an allegory so much as he had a god complex. It's not really that allegorical if he's literally going 'I live in heaven surrounded by angels' is it? But in any case I don't think it was really trying to say much about God or Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

I partially disagree with this statement. He did want to get it over with it, as he says so himself, he wanted to step out of the way. But he gave a good performance in that one, too, as good as this one.

It felt like that to me, too. I would say closer to the God of the Old Testament than anything in the New Testament.

Agreed, probably more Old Testament. 

4 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I dunno if it was an allegory so much as he had a god complex. It's not really that allegorical if he's literally going 'I live in heaven surrounded by angels' is it? But in any case I don't think it was really trying to say much about God or Christianity.

Maybe allegory was the wrong choice of word. Maybe not much to read into it though I think it's pretty clear that Wallace has a Messiah complex of some kind. Maybe not christian in nature, but his whole first monologue was about him saving humanity and taking them further. Which brings up another interesting point in the movie, where I feel that Wallace in no way was a clear cut villain. I don't even know if he was a villain, or just a representation of some things in society.

So what do you think that scene was saying, if it has nothing to do with God or christianity? I think it must have been at least 5 minutes long, and probably one of the longest scenes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Фейсал said:

Yeah. Rachel was an engineered epirement by Tyrell; she was purposefully given no prescribed life span

I don't think that was established, outside the tacked-on happy ending of the theatrical release. It seems likely to me that her death during childbirth was due to having reached her expiry date. She died about 20 months after the first movie, so presumably she spent at least a year with Deckard before discovering she was pregnant and splitting up to protect the kid.

The Nexus-8s seem to be the first without expiry dates; I don't think there are any confirmed 7s running around in 2049? Deckard might have been a Nexus-8 prototype, or he might have been a human who might have had his memories messed with. If he is a replicant, I do think he's newer than Rachael.

Quote

and depending on where you stand on the Deckard issue - Wallace's conversation can imply that Deckard was also put on the case for that singular purpose.

I don't think Wallace knows; their records from the Tyrell era are fragmentary.

Quote

Sapper was hunted because he was an older serial number showing independence, it's that simple.

I seem to recall mention of uprisings that resulted in replicants being banned altogether (until Wallace's new more obedient versions), so the fear of them isn't without foundation. Of course slave uprisings aren't exactly unjustified either.

7 hours ago, Fez said:

There is; however, I'm nearly positive that the opening screen text called them Nexus-8s; whereas Roy and co. were Nexus-6s. My guess is that Rachel was the first Nexus-8 and that there were a few more in the production pipeline already (like Sapper) when Tyrell Corp. got shuttered.

I'm pretty sure she was a Nexus-7 - we saw her serial number. The Nexus-8s seem to have had a wide release; maybe even on Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, felice said:

I don't think that was established, outside the tacked-on happy ending of the theatrical release. It seems likely to me that her death during childbirth was due to having reached her expiry date. She died about 20 months after the first movie, so presumably she spent at least a year with Deckard before discovering she was pregnant and splitting up to protect the kid.

The Nexus-8s seem to be the first without expiry dates; I don't think there are any confirmed 7s running around in 2049? Deckard might have been a Nexus-8 prototype, or he might have been a human who might have had his memories messed with. If he is a replicant, I do think he's newer than Rachael.

I don't think Wallace knows; their records from the Tyrell era are fragmentary.

I seem to recall mention of uprisings that resulted in replicants being banned altogether (until Wallace's new more obedient versions), so the fear of them isn't without foundation. Of course slave uprisings aren't exactly unjustified either.

I'm pretty sure she was a Nexus-7 - we saw her serial number. The Nexus-8s seem to have had a wide release; maybe even on Earth.

Maybe she was purposefully engineered to die after giving child birth - but she was certainly made for longevity, more so than your average replicant.

Fragmentary to our knowledge - hard to say what Wallace really knows and what he doesn't and what the corp wants to hide from K and co.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 6:05 PM, Theda Baratheon said:

I thought Leto's character could have been played by someone else and better. One of the few things that didn't bother me but I thought could have been different. Would have been a great role for a not well known actor to shine. But then again Joi and Luv fulfilled that. 

I like Leto. I thought his scene with Ford was one of the best dialog delivery's in the movie.

I didn't understand , given that his character was supposed to be a genius why he didn't know before hand that tempting him a a 'new' Rachel would not work. Plot has small slips like this throughout.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, boojam said:

given that his character was supposed to be a genius why he didn't know before hand that tempting him a a 'new' Rachel would not work.



Why would he? Being a genius doesn't mean infallible in every way. He doesn't know Deckard. From his perspective it's worth a shot, especially if he does think there's a chance Deckard was a replicant literally engineered to fall in love with her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, boojam said:

I like Leto. I thought his scene with Ford was one of the best dialog delivery's in the movie.

I didn't understand , given that his character was supposed to be a genius why he didn't know before hand that tempting him a a 'new' Rachel would not work. Plot has small slips like this throughout.

 

It was working. It's the eyes that broke the illusion for Deckard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Фейсал said:

Maybe she was purposefully engineered to die after giving child birth - but she was certainly made for longevity, more so than your average replicant.

Where do you get that from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Фейсал said:

It was working. It's the eyes that broke the illusion for Deckard.

I don't think that's it's the eyes, it was a lot deeper than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, polishgenius said:



Why would he? Being a genius doesn't mean infallible in every way. He doesn't know Deckard. From his perspective it's worth a shot, especially if he does think there's a chance Deckard was a replicant literally engineered to fall in love with her.

On the face of it , it seems too crude, so Deckard is supposed to spill the beans as to where his daughter* is form seeing a replicated redlicant? That too sophomoric , after all they had a hard time finding Deckard , and his super sophisticated company has an intelligence service better than the LAPD and they can't find the under-ground-Android-resistance? This is a sophisticated story , maybe they understood they were no fitting popular tastes in current film goers and didn't add anymore sophistication to the story.

*From the story , he didn't know where his daughter was.

Edited by boojam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now